Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
Thread started 17 Sep 2009 (Thursday) 14:31
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

Noobie has a 40D...which wide angle lens $150-300

 
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,439 posts
Gallery: 622 photos
Likes: 3076
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Sep 17, 2009 15:59 |  #16

KeyToTheCosmos wrote in post #8661409 (external link)
The 28-135 won't let me get wide angles, I want sunsets and ocean and field pics that are wide.

Alright then..

I just don't get why a 10-22 vs a 15-70 or something. If I understand right that is the focal depth, right, but how do they rate a wide angle lens, how do you know how wide it is? Does less depth mean more width when you are talking wide angle lens?

Focal length, The smaller the number the wider the angle of view, ie, the more scene you get in the picture

So the smaller the number, the wider the lens is going to be


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,407 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 3433
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Sep 17, 2009 16:06 |  #17

see this
http://www.tamron.com …cal-length-comparison.php (external link)
set it at 28mm...thats as wide as you can go...now move the bar to 18mm...that's what an 18-55mm would give you...now move it to 10mm...thats how wide a 10-20mm would get you...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
borism
Goldmember
Avatar
3,417 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 147
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Florida, Weston
     
Sep 17, 2009 16:49 as a reply to  @ DreDaze's post |  #18

KeyToTheCosmos wrote in post #8661237 (external link)
Thanks but I can't understand the justification for some of these, does macro have a certain range and far away shots have another? What are the basic rules for this stuff?

As far as macro stuff: Your 28-135 gives you pretty close focus so you can experiment a little with close focus
Although not real macro it can give you a taste of close photography

Dedicated macro lens usually go from 60mm then 100mm or so, and 180mm and give you much closer focus

A very nice real wide angle as mentioned is the Tokina 12-24 f4 (the old version can be found for 399$ new)

The best least expensive that will give you somewhat wide is the EFS 18-55IS you can find it refurb from adorama for 129$ and used for around 100$


CANON 6D - SONY A6000

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,331 posts
Likes: 146
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Sep 17, 2009 17:43 |  #19

Another vote for the Tokina 12-24/4. You might be able to find a used copy of the original version for perhaps $300-350, but they hold their value pretty well since most people like them a lot. Tokina introduced a new version just this year... seems mostly just some new coatings (which probably just means they now market the identical lens to the one they make for Pentax and Nikon). So the earlier one that originally sold for $500 is now discounted a bit, whether new or used. Very well made, too... More solid feeling than the Canon 10-22 that sells for a couple hundred dollars more (and doesn't even include the lens hood).

Sometime do yourself a favor and get a set of macro extension tubes (Kenko, $160... Adorama, $100). Use those mostly with your 28-135 for macro work... Even though it focuses pretty darned close already.

The 12-24 and 28-135 make a really nice pair of lenses, compliment each other very well, and actually cover a wider range than most film shooters ever owned in their entire lifetimes, back in the good/bad old days.

On your camera... a 10mm lens is an "ultra wide". A 12mm is "very wide". 15mm to 20 or 21mm would be "wide angle". 24mm to 35mm would be a "normal" or "standard". 50mm and 85mm are "short telephotos". 135mm to 150mm are "moderate telephotos". 200mm is a "long telephoto" And anything greater than 200mm is getting into "super telephotos".

Most macro lenses happen to be short to moderate telephotos. It's just what works best, giving you enough room to not cast shadows on your subject, not scare away living thngs, etc. Most people starting out (with a crop sensor camera like your 40D) I'd recommend a 60mm to 105mm as a starting point that's fairly easy to use. Notice that your current zoom lens covers that range nicely. Now, for maximum detail and sharpness, most true macro lenses are not zooms, but primes - which is another way of saying a "fixed focal length". But, your zoom is a great place to start and learn what you like.


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII, 7D, M5 & others. 10-22mm, Meike 12/2.8,Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, EF-M 22/2, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Sigma 56/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS, 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
evilryu530
Member
Avatar
211 posts
Joined Aug 2009
     
Sep 17, 2009 18:23 |  #20

18-55 IS! wide enough for what u need. and it's dirt cheap. 100 bucks. great lens.


sold it all!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
l7s4
Member
218 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Jun 2008
     
Sep 18, 2009 14:43 |  #21

My 2 cents...If you are happy with the 28-135 performance, perhaps a better way to go would be to replace that lens with sometime like the new 18-135 Canon is releasing, if you can wait a bit. B and H showing it as $499. Selling the 28-135 should net you at least $200+ of that.

The advantage is no lens swapping...covers your entire range of interest.

If, however, you want better performance, then the wide angles mentioned are a better way to go, albeit at a $300 budget, you going to have to work for the better deal.

The only point of adding an 18-55IS, IMHO, is cost...B and H shows it at $139 new.

Good luck, Paul




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
plasticmotif
Goldmember
Avatar
3,174 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Tennessee
     
Sep 18, 2009 15:42 |  #22

evilryu530 wrote in post #8661140 (external link)
tokina 12-24 is 399 brand new on amazon.

sigma 10-20 is good barely in your range, probably anotehr 50-75 bucks for a used one.

canon, out of your range by more than double.

get a 18-55 IS , thats in your range, kinda wide.

the tokina is very sharp. I was playing with it today at the office...very nice.


Mac P.
My Zenfolio (external link) My Photo Blog (external link) My Equipment
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=14172975#po​st14172975

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KeyToTheCosmos
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
Avatar
11 posts
Joined Sep 2009
     
Sep 30, 2009 15:51 |  #23

I would probably just go with the tokina. Thanks everyone

What I don't get is why macro lenses are higher numbers.

I always think of telephotos having high numbers to zzoom far out

So what differentiates macro high numbers to those of telephotos?

Also, does the wide angle go on my 28-135 or are they separate on the cam?

Thanks!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,407 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 3433
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Sep 30, 2009 15:56 |  #24

KeyToTheCosmos wrote in post #8736154 (external link)
I would probably just go with the tokina. Thanks everyone

What I don't get is why macro lenses are higher numbers.

I always think of telephotos having high numbers to zzoom far out

So what differentiates macro high numbers to those of telephotos?

Also, does the wide angle go on my 28-135 or are they separate on the cam?

Thanks!


you take the 28-135mm off, and then put on the other lens...


the longer the lens the more distance you get when shooting macro...so with a 100mm macro you can be 1:1 at a farther distance than a 60mm macro...it comes in handy if you're shooting bugs or something that'll scare off if you get really close


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
msowsun
"approx 8mm"
Avatar
9,317 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 416
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Peterborough Ont. Canada
     
Sep 30, 2009 16:20 |  #25

KeyToTheCosmos wrote in post #8736154 (external link)
I would probably just go with the tokina. Thanks everyone

What I don't get is why macro lenses are higher numbers.

I always think of telephotos having high numbers to zzoom far out

So what differentiates macro high numbers to those of telephotos?

Also, does the wide angle go on my 28-135 or are they separate on the cam?

Thanks!

We are talking about lenses that go on your camera. Not attachments that go on a lens. Stay away from those. They are not sharp.

The Tokina 12-24 is a nice lens, but it is an ULTRA WIDE Angle lens. It is good for large scenic shots or ultra wide angle in confined spaces, but not that usable as a "walk around" lens. It only has a zoom ratio of 2 to 1. That means when you are standing looking a scene, there is not much adjustment available by zooming.

Your 28-135 has almost a 5 to 1 zoom ratio. You can zoom in or out to compose your scene. I think you will be disappointed with the Tokina 12-24.
You still need a standard walk around lens the covers the normal range.

The 18-55 IS is the best choice for you. It is a sharp lens, has Image Stabilization, a 3 to 1 zoom ratio, and it only cost about $140. It also has quite good close focusing ability (Macro).

Macro lenses don't have to be high numbers (like 100mm) They can be any any size. They only thing that makes a lens "MACRO" is the ability to focus closely and make the image big in your viewfinder.


Mike Sowsun / SL1 / 80D / EF-S 24mm STM / EF-S 10-18mm STM / EF-S 18-55mm STM / EF-S 15-85mm USM / EF-S 55-250mm STM / 5D3 / Samyang 14mm 2.8 / EF 40mm 2.8 STM / EF 50mm 1.4 USM / EF 100mm 2.0 USM / EF 100mm 2.8 USM Macro / EF 24-105mm IS / EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS Mk II / EF 100-400 II / EF 1.4x II
Full Current and Previously Owned Gear List over 40 years Flickr Photostream (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KeyToTheCosmos
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
Avatar
11 posts
Joined Sep 2009
     
Oct 05, 2009 09:22 |  #26

right now i think my priority should be macro/wide angle/multi

right now i have the multi, 28-135 or whatever it is.

the 12-24 would seem nice because what i want the wide angle for is things like mountaintop scenery or maybe a large forest scene or ocean scene etc. something wide open. so i dont think id be dissapointed with that.

the next thinng id need to do now is find a decent macro lens, that is better than the current 28-135 i have right now.

the 28-135 doesn't seem to zoom in too far. if i could find a nice macro lenns for 300 id be happy but i doubt this somehow. the problem right now i have is that i cant get close while taking macros if i need a flash, too. so i also need a flash and a diffuser i guess.

after that, i dont want to spend more money on this camera for a long time. lol.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jason ­ C
do I need to submit a resume...?
4,922 posts
Gallery: 167 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 2005
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Calabasas, CA
     
Oct 06, 2009 17:40 |  #27

gasrocks wrote in post #8661419 (external link)
18-55 IS.

+1 AND a begginer's book into photography AND read the 40D manual AND take lots 'n lots of pictures...

Jason C


Equipment & Feedback
"I am not interested in shooting new things-I am interested to see things new"--Ernst Haas

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

3,216 views & 0 likes for this thread, 17 members have posted to it and it is followed by 3 members.
Noobie has a 40D...which wide angle lens $150-300
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
2661 guests, 163 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.